September 29, 2006

That's the line the "Survivor" editors chose to feature as the segregated teams were integrated in the third episode of the season. So much for the big publicity stunt that got me. It was like some gruesome oversized octopus that slithers its tentacles around your torso and attaches its suckers all over. Speaking of suckers...

Blah! Of course, the pro-integration message is a good one -- it's thoroughly well-scrubbed and wholesome -- but the occasion for saying it was manufactured and the quote itself was extracted from raw footage that no doubt included a lot of grousing and teasing and who knows what. Plus, it came from Parvati, who annoyed the hell out of me last night as she talked to the camera, confessing her scheme of manipulating all the guys on her team with her laughably unsubtle flirting... or as they say over on Television Without Pity, "swooning over the three slabs of hetero manmeat."

Indeed, the fuss about racial difference is over. It never amounted to much, and surely, if anything ugly happened, judicious editing would have kept it from us viewers. And now we can see that it's sex difference that really dominates, not just with Parvati's embarrassing flirting, but with the total capitulation of all the women in the physical challenge. The game consisted of walking in knee-deep water while carrying a 15-pound bag. You could drop out, but only by handing off your bag to one of your teammates. The women all caved right in and left the men holding the bags. Despite the entertainment value of roped-together slabs of hetero manmeat trudging through water, it was pretty disturbing to see the physical disparity depicted so obviously face-slammingly.

It was part of the "strategery" - have the females deliberately fail so they could hand it off to the males for the win. Its not that the women couldn't compete in the challenge, its that they chose not to.

And whats with GM [or Ford?] pulling their advertising [maybe over the racial bit]? Similiar to 7-11 droppping CITGO. Both companies apparently dropped as a protest move, but then their public statements re it are mealy-mouthed non-statements.

Ann, is there some legal reason that would discourage a company from explaining that they pulled out because of racist overtones or Hugo Chavez? Or is it just business best practices not to burn any bridges with a negative public statement?

Height matters a lot. It would be easier to walk in water that hit below the knew that that hit mid-thigh! I think part of the teamwork was figuring out whether having the taller, bigger members carry more weight was more efficient, and it really was, so everyone did it. Still that means the test was set up to favor the men. Presumably, there are challenges where being small helps. In a real survival situation, the smaller person needs less food to avoid starvation and can probably move faster, climb higher, and wriggle out of tight spots better.

Ann's right -- height has as much to do with it as strength. The more of your leg is underwater, the more resistance the water offers. 15 pounds is not a lot of weight to carry. In many cultures women are the burden bearers.

In a real survival situation, the smaller person needs less food to avoid starvation and can probably move faster, climb higher, and wriggle out of tight spots better.

This is nonsense. In a "real survival situation," the women are likely pregnant most of the time, so they need more food, shouldn't be climbing, and shouldn't be doing any wriggling. There is no scientific evidence that women move faster than men, whatever that means.

Ann said...In a real survival situation, the smaller person needs less food to avoid starvation and can probably move faster, climb higher, and wriggle out of tight spots better.

I would argue that men would be favored in most of those alternative tests you proposed. You've conceded that men can carry more weight. If your test is "move faster" over distance carriying what you need to survive, then it's the same advantage to men. If it's climb higher by walking, then again the wieght carrying, combine with the lung and hemoglobin supply give men the advantage. If it is "climb trees higher" you have the longer reach and much better upper body strngth. Only it you define it as "climb out on smaller branches" do you get an advantage to women and that would not save you from any predator that can climb at all.

I was just doing a small versus large comparison, leaving out sex difference. That is, take a small male compared to a large male. (Or a small female versus a large female.) Is height an advantage? We were talking about trudging through shallow water where height was definitely an advantage. There are some other advantages to height: you can see farther, reach higher, have a longer stride, etc. Don't add other factors like the degree of muscular strength. Just height. Who is better off? It would depend on the dangers, but if it was food and water shortage, it would be better to be small.

A big guy couldn't have done all that Houdini did. Gymnasts who are on the short side have every advantage when moving their own bodies, since strength goes as the square of height and weight as the cube.

I thought I'd watch this season, but when I saw last week's show I was too disappointed that most of the time was spent on the annoying interpersonal relationships instead of the challenge. I'm used to Project Runway (and occasionally I'll get sucked into The Amazing Race), where more emphasis is on performance.

*Ann, I don't know if you cared for it or not, but "I Shouldn't Be Alive" is coming back in Nov.

It would depend on the dangers, but if it was food and water shortage, it would be better to be small.

But your unrealistic subtraction of muscles makes no sense. People get muscles from exercise and food intake. If there were less food and less water, everyone would be smaller. Malnourished people are smaller. It is not better to be malnourished than well-fed.

I thought it interesting that in the loser tribe (that would be the tribe that lost the sloshing through the water while bearing weights competition) the key dynamic emerging, as edited, was hippie v. non-hippie.

As it turned out, that was the usual editing fake-out and the two hippie-ish folks who they showed vacilating on joining the dominate alliance and complaining about all the 'game' playing, played along afterall.

And in past shows, lean muscular dudes have done poorly in stamina style contests, especially later in the game after low calorie diets for a few weeks. Large muscles require lots of calories, and without a good fat reserve, they fade faster than muscled and fat guys, or the truly skinny.

And halojonesfan, sure you can mention the stuff, but would you dare to actually provide a link to the Wiki page on the phenomena?

Also, that in a nutshell is what is fantastic and disturbing about Wikipedia. They have a tentacle rape page.